1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that provides security business (facility security business, etc.) and housing management business, etc., and the Defendant is the council of occupants’ representatives comprised of occupants of the emull apartment complex on the ground of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, 126-9 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On March 29, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into the instant consignment management contract (hereinafter “instant consignment management contract”) with the Defendant, setting the contract amount of KRW 15,466,00 per month (including value-added tax. The settlement of accounts at the end of each month and payment by the fifth day of the following month) with respect to the management of the instant apartment.

C. The Plaintiff had been managing the apartment of this case pursuant to the instant consignment management contract. On September 2009, the Plaintiff incurred KRW 14,014,545, excluding the disinfection cost out of the service cost. The Defendant reserved the payment of the above amount when there was a dispute regarding the collection of the overdue management fee.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the ground for appeal

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the service cost of September 2009 to the plaintiff 14,014,545 won and delay damages.

3. Determination on the parties’ assertion regarding extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant had already extinguished the period of short-term extinctive prescription of three years as stipulated in Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for the instant service charges constitutes “claim for the Payment of Money within one year as stipulated in Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act” and the Defendant’s claim for the payment of service charges by the fifth day of the following month. As such, the said claim constitutes “claim for the Payment of Money within one year” under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, and the three-year short-term extinctive prescription period is applied. The base date of the statute of limitations period is October 6, 2009, and the lawsuit of this case was filed on August 13, 2013.